In-depth pictorial expose with analysis on the New Russian Fighter
Evertonian
Are you referring to what looks like an F117 model suspended from a crane WestCoast?
What's the deal with the Plasma? Is that supposed to cover the engines' radar signature or something?
What's the deal with the Plasma? Is that supposed to cover the engines' radar signature or something?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Back to Level 1
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emmm... developed in co-operation with Indian Aircraft Industry ... now remind me what the £850m worth of Foreign Aid, per annum, given by the UK Tax Payer goes towards ?
Very nice link...Thank you.
Last edited by xuejiesandi; 4th Jul 2010 at 05:03.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strikes me we should cease any investment in typhoon NOW and buy F35 in greater numbers - at least we would then be in 5th gen completely instead of the RAF myopia of staying in 3rd - mainly, IMHO, to keep the RN out of FW.
Well, we (the UK) could have had this (REPLICA not NIGHTJAR which was UAV): BAe Systems Nightjar
The upside down aircraft is full-size and not a small model as some might think. Having seen it in the flesh, it looks spookily similar to the Russian's new aircraft.
In years to come I suspect we will see Project REPLICA as another "TSR2 Moment". It could have been the first decent bit of kit to come out of the Preston area since the English Electric Lightning and Canberra...
Here's a report on REPLICA a while ago:
Here's hoping that TARANIS will deliver then. I believe she's rolling out to pomp and ceremony this month (2-star upward invites only).
The B Word
The upside down aircraft is full-size and not a small model as some might think. Having seen it in the flesh, it looks spookily similar to the Russian's new aircraft.
In years to come I suspect we will see Project REPLICA as another "TSR2 Moment". It could have been the first decent bit of kit to come out of the Preston area since the English Electric Lightning and Canberra...
Here's a report on REPLICA a while ago:
Aviation Week & Space Technology 03/31/2003
Replica Stealth
U.K. designed, built low-observable platform
to maintain its defense/aerospace player status
DOUGLAS BARRIE/LONDON
Under a highly classified program Britain has built and tested a full-scale low-observable aircraft design as part of a broad-based effort into next-generation air combat platforms.
The program, which had cover names including Replica and Testbed, was jointly funded by the Defense Ministry and BAE Systems. The latter built a full-scale model of the low-observable (LO) design, and tested it on its radar cross-section range at its Warton site, in the northeast of England.
Although the full-scale Replica design never flew, the model was built with features representative of an actual LO aircraft. The then-Defense and Evaluation Research Agency (now Defense Science Technology Laboratory) was also involved in the conceptual study phase.
ONE SOURCE CLOSE to the program told Aviation Week & Space Technology that airframe components were constructed to "pretty tight specifications." The design also included conformal shared-apertures, along with having an internal weapons bay.
Build and test of the Replica airframe was carried out under extremely tight security by BAE's Advanced Technology Demonstration Center. Testing on the radar cross-section range is understood to have been carried out only at night. The superstructure housing the test stand can be moved to allow for radar cross-section trials.
The program, launched in 1994, culminated in what is described by the company as "the most extensive and ambitious radar cross-section measurement program undertaken in the U.K. to date." The RCS trials were completed in 1999: "Testing proved successful, demonstrating that the designed model achieved the signature targets."
Much of the Replica airframe consisted of carbon fiber composite skin panels. The airframe was a wing-body blended design with a V-tail. The canopy was treated to avoid radar scattering from within the cockpit environment. The design also exhibits an unusual curved edge to the radome.
The program was the major element of U.K. work into LO platforms during the 1990s intended to address future requirements, and to ensure the Defense Ministry and industry remained a credible--and informed--partner in potential collaborations. Replica was intended to address both air force and navy needs.
The latter half of the 1990s saw the Defense Ministry and the government attempt to ensure access to national, international and multinational routes with regard to the development of next-generation low-observable combat aircraft.
In parallel to continuing long-standing bilateral agreements with Washington on LO, the government also weighed the option of possible European collaboration. However, the nature of the U.K.-U.S. bilateral restricted London's room to maneuver as far as European collaboration was concerned, so long as it wanted to maintain U.S. access.
While the U.K. eventually joined the European Technology Acquisition Program--intended to address next-generation air platform needs--it has finessed its involvement status to allow it to pick the areas of technology in which it participates. Such an approach was crafted to ensure the protection of the LO relationship with Washington.
More importantly, it also became a launch partner for the Joint Strike Fighter program--with the aircraft viewed as becoming "the U.K.'s primary manned offensive air platform," by senior air force officials. Both the government and industry remain keen to maximize access to the LO aspects of the JSF, with the Replica program as leverage--if needed.
BAE and the Defense Ministry invested jointly more than 20 million pounds ($31 million) in Replica, with the former also pitching in additional research and technology funding on the program.
Alongside Replica and Testbed, a further codeword associated with British stealth research during the early 1990s was HALO. This has been variously ascribed as meaning Hawk Low Observable--a Hawk jet trainer modified by BAE to examine the impact of modest stealth changes to an aircraft--and High Agility Low Observable.
REPLICA--AT LEAST IN PLAN form--shows notable resemblance to the McDonnell Douglas/British Aerospace (BAE) design offered to meet the Pentagon's Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program. The design may reflect aspects of the highly sensitive U.K.-U.S. LO relationship.
Like Replica, JAST also had its inception in the early 1990s. JAST evolved into the Joint Strike Fighter program, with BAE eventually involved in the winning Lockheed Martin bid.
The early 1990s also saw the air force begin to look to a successor for its Tornado strike aircraft under the aegis of Air Staff Target 425. AST 425, later known as the Future Offensive Aircraft, and now as the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS), examined development of a platform to be fielded beyond 2010. Some design illustrations released publicly by BAE in discussing the FOAS program can now be seen to reflect some elements of its Replica efforts.
At the outset, AST 425 was predicated on the development of a crewed aircraft successor to the air force's Tornado GR4. However, as the requirement has developed over the past decade--to present FOAS efforts--focus has shifted toward being fulfilled by a number of different systems including crewed aircraft, cruise missiles and UCAVs.
While the Replica program was concluded in 1999, the results of the LO research and aspects of the design and manufacture process are being applied to other programs.
BAE is looking at the development of LO UCAVs to meet future U.K. needs, and Replica has likely also fed into this work. As with the JSF, British participation in U.S. UCAV developments remains a distinct possibility.
Replica Stealth
U.K. designed, built low-observable platform
to maintain its defense/aerospace player status
DOUGLAS BARRIE/LONDON
Under a highly classified program Britain has built and tested a full-scale low-observable aircraft design as part of a broad-based effort into next-generation air combat platforms.
The program, which had cover names including Replica and Testbed, was jointly funded by the Defense Ministry and BAE Systems. The latter built a full-scale model of the low-observable (LO) design, and tested it on its radar cross-section range at its Warton site, in the northeast of England.
Although the full-scale Replica design never flew, the model was built with features representative of an actual LO aircraft. The then-Defense and Evaluation Research Agency (now Defense Science Technology Laboratory) was also involved in the conceptual study phase.
ONE SOURCE CLOSE to the program told Aviation Week & Space Technology that airframe components were constructed to "pretty tight specifications." The design also included conformal shared-apertures, along with having an internal weapons bay.
Build and test of the Replica airframe was carried out under extremely tight security by BAE's Advanced Technology Demonstration Center. Testing on the radar cross-section range is understood to have been carried out only at night. The superstructure housing the test stand can be moved to allow for radar cross-section trials.
The program, launched in 1994, culminated in what is described by the company as "the most extensive and ambitious radar cross-section measurement program undertaken in the U.K. to date." The RCS trials were completed in 1999: "Testing proved successful, demonstrating that the designed model achieved the signature targets."
Much of the Replica airframe consisted of carbon fiber composite skin panels. The airframe was a wing-body blended design with a V-tail. The canopy was treated to avoid radar scattering from within the cockpit environment. The design also exhibits an unusual curved edge to the radome.
The program was the major element of U.K. work into LO platforms during the 1990s intended to address future requirements, and to ensure the Defense Ministry and industry remained a credible--and informed--partner in potential collaborations. Replica was intended to address both air force and navy needs.
The latter half of the 1990s saw the Defense Ministry and the government attempt to ensure access to national, international and multinational routes with regard to the development of next-generation low-observable combat aircraft.
In parallel to continuing long-standing bilateral agreements with Washington on LO, the government also weighed the option of possible European collaboration. However, the nature of the U.K.-U.S. bilateral restricted London's room to maneuver as far as European collaboration was concerned, so long as it wanted to maintain U.S. access.
While the U.K. eventually joined the European Technology Acquisition Program--intended to address next-generation air platform needs--it has finessed its involvement status to allow it to pick the areas of technology in which it participates. Such an approach was crafted to ensure the protection of the LO relationship with Washington.
More importantly, it also became a launch partner for the Joint Strike Fighter program--with the aircraft viewed as becoming "the U.K.'s primary manned offensive air platform," by senior air force officials. Both the government and industry remain keen to maximize access to the LO aspects of the JSF, with the Replica program as leverage--if needed.
BAE and the Defense Ministry invested jointly more than 20 million pounds ($31 million) in Replica, with the former also pitching in additional research and technology funding on the program.
Alongside Replica and Testbed, a further codeword associated with British stealth research during the early 1990s was HALO. This has been variously ascribed as meaning Hawk Low Observable--a Hawk jet trainer modified by BAE to examine the impact of modest stealth changes to an aircraft--and High Agility Low Observable.
REPLICA--AT LEAST IN PLAN form--shows notable resemblance to the McDonnell Douglas/British Aerospace (BAE) design offered to meet the Pentagon's Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program. The design may reflect aspects of the highly sensitive U.K.-U.S. LO relationship.
Like Replica, JAST also had its inception in the early 1990s. JAST evolved into the Joint Strike Fighter program, with BAE eventually involved in the winning Lockheed Martin bid.
The early 1990s also saw the air force begin to look to a successor for its Tornado strike aircraft under the aegis of Air Staff Target 425. AST 425, later known as the Future Offensive Aircraft, and now as the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS), examined development of a platform to be fielded beyond 2010. Some design illustrations released publicly by BAE in discussing the FOAS program can now be seen to reflect some elements of its Replica efforts.
At the outset, AST 425 was predicated on the development of a crewed aircraft successor to the air force's Tornado GR4. However, as the requirement has developed over the past decade--to present FOAS efforts--focus has shifted toward being fulfilled by a number of different systems including crewed aircraft, cruise missiles and UCAVs.
While the Replica program was concluded in 1999, the results of the LO research and aspects of the design and manufacture process are being applied to other programs.
BAE is looking at the development of LO UCAVs to meet future U.K. needs, and Replica has likely also fed into this work. As with the JSF, British participation in U.S. UCAV developments remains a distinct possibility.
The B Word
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 won't be available for at least 10 years, probaly more like 15, so what do we do in the meantime.......???
F35 is in production at Ft Worth and stands up with the USMC in 2012. The first UK pilots start training next year.
Bismark,
I'm not talking about the current planned dates, but when it is actually likely to happen, given delays, cost stretching, etc....
I'll remind you again in ten years time if I can be bothered. Compare planned in service dates vs actual for Typhoon, T45, MRA4, A400M, FSTA, etc, etc....
First in service in any reasonable numbers date for UK forces is currently 2018 I believe, a two year slip on that (my quote of "at least 10 years") is pretty conservative). Carrying out F-35 production while development is still taking place is a very risky approach which I believe has been critiicised in the US, but I am no expert on the F-35....
The link discusses the F-35 test schedule being extended by 13 months, let alone "areas of concern"......
US Department of Defense raises F-35 cost estimate to $382 billion
Take off your rose tinted glasses, I'm not being negative, merely realistic!
I'm not talking about the current planned dates, but when it is actually likely to happen, given delays, cost stretching, etc....
I'll remind you again in ten years time if I can be bothered. Compare planned in service dates vs actual for Typhoon, T45, MRA4, A400M, FSTA, etc, etc....
First in service in any reasonable numbers date for UK forces is currently 2018 I believe, a two year slip on that (my quote of "at least 10 years") is pretty conservative). Carrying out F-35 production while development is still taking place is a very risky approach which I believe has been critiicised in the US, but I am no expert on the F-35....
The link discusses the F-35 test schedule being extended by 13 months, let alone "areas of concern"......
US Department of Defense raises F-35 cost estimate to $382 billion
Take off your rose tinted glasses, I'm not being negative, merely realistic!